What is “bias-free” writing? The Guidelines’
definition of it is “writing free of discriminatory or disparaging language.”
It should be stressed that the object of Guidelines’ concerns is not
primarily racial slurs. The AAUP is not referring to the language to be found
in the pathological hate literature published by the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan
Nation, or the Black Muslims, but to staid university publications. Its
focus is common, inoffensive usage, and the implication throughout the book is
that scholarly works that are not “sensitized” and “sanitized” may in the
future be demoted to the rank of hate literature, and treated with the same
disdain, regardless of their intellectual merit or significance….

Guidelines includes
the disclaimer, “there is no such thing as a truly bias-free language” and
stresses that the advice it offers is only “that of white, North American (specifically U.S.), feminist publishing
professionals.” The Task Force, which is composed of 21 university press
editors (two of them men), recommends euphemistic proxies for all of the terms
on its “hit list…”

In essence, Guidelines advocates abolishing human
comparisons by prohibiting the identity of referents. In the foregoing example,
one would be discouraged from expressing a judgment or evaluation of a person
who has offered abundant evidence of his inability or unwillingness to think
normally or to perform some task. Such a person is simply there, like a rock or
a tree, beyond discrimination (in the strict, nonracial, nonsexist meaning of
that word), beyond evaluation, beyond recognition. He is not incomparable; more
precisely, he is non-comparable. To compare the inventor of the steam
engine with a man who is unable to do simple math or boil a kettle of water
without harming himself is, by egalitarian anti-standards, a grave breach of
“social justice” and an unforgivable faux pas.

So any statement today that
upholds Western civilization as an accomplishment to be preserved and advanced can
be labeled as “hate speech,” specifically racist
hate speech, because what we have today did not come from Islam or the
Central African Republic or the natives of the Argentine pampas or the Algonquians. It is
now primarily racist slurs that are flung at men of reason. Academia and the MSM may
“disparage” whites and civilization without penalty or recrimination. Whites will
even “disparage” themselves to remain in the graces of the PC
collective.

So, the purpose of
quasi-government censorship via the giant tech companies such as Google
and Apple, and financial systems like PayPal, is not just to silence
“offensive” blog sites and to control personal emails, but to suffocate the
public into soundless and voiceless silence. And to create a permanent pall of ignorance. A
vacuum. The Left has a long history of blanking out reality, and it wishes to
force Americans to blank out as well.

The Left, in
alliance with Islam, is determined to sequester and imprison man’s mind. That
is the long and short of it. “Were you ever there?” asks Ezra Levant of The Rebel Media. The Left doesn’t want
you to know. It prefers you to somehow live and exist in a state of
cluelessness.

There is no question
that Americans have the right to express racist, offensive, unpopular views
under the First Amendment — it's a right that has been repeatedly upheld by the US
Supreme Court. But the right-wing demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia,
last weekend may have gone too far when they began chanting racial and
homophobic slurs to specific people.

It’s a gray area of
constitutional law, but several experts said this week that the white
supremacists may have crossed a line into what is known as unprotected speech.

In 1942, the Supreme
Court ruled that "fighting words" are not protected under the First
Amendment. The Court defines fighting words as "those which by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Suppose the police were ordered to stand down when those “fighting
words” were spoken, and to let the two groups rumble without interference. As
they did in Charlottesville and Berkeley. Not so coincidentally, it was a Supreme Court
ruling that sanctified the notion that words can “inflict injury.” Is that
physical injury, caused by a thrown brick, or a fist, or was the Court also
referring to “psychological” injuries of some kind? The rot goes back decades.

The
Court notices judicially that the appellations "damned racketeer"
and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average
person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

In the context of
the Charlottesville demonstration, experts agree that slurs such as the n-word
and "faggot" would be considered serious personal insults and that
they were directed at a specific person or group of people. What is unclear is
whether their words were likely to spark immediate violence.

But in the Bizarro World of the
Left, personal insults, serious or not, are more injurious than slapstick
comedy’s cream pies thrown in the face; sound vibrations acquire the metaphysical
potency of objects.

Orwell's protagonist,
Winston
Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State
might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders
whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it
true? The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals,
O'Brien,
says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality
is unimportant; so long as one controls one's own perceptions to what the Party
wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of
doublethink…
("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are
all of them at once").

A colleague, Syme, who is working on the Eleventh Edition of
the Newspeak dictionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four, which will be shorter than the
Tenth Edition, describes his work:

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak
is to narrow the range of thought? In
the end we shall make thoughtcrime
literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word,
with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and
forgotten….”

The Eraser Heads
believe that removing or destroying statues will somehow erase the history
behind them. The selectively self-blinded non-seers of the non-existent statues
(and artwork) will no longer be triggered or defiled by them, and will be pure.
While anyone who is white will be tarred and feathered with guilt. Anyone who
upholds Western culture (and not the Deconstructionist brand) and Western
civilization will be smeared as a racist.

The “rising tide of racism”?
Where? If there’s a tide, then it’s a
puddle. However, if there is a “rising
tide” of racism, it’s being fed by the leaking mains of academia and the MSM. It
has been cited so many times, the term “racism” no longer has any punch or significance.
As Syme explained, such a term serves as a catch-all for anything “negative.” “Every
concept that can ever be needed, will be

Your new lexicographers

expressed by exactly one word…” In
this case, racism. If you question
what is on Donald Trump’s Oval Office desk, you can call it racism. If you
object to Melania Trump’s appearance and sense of fashion, but refrain from Michelle
Obama’s “patented shower curtain dresses,” you can indulge in approved racism. If
you derogate the political and intellectual Founders of the U.S. and cite their
slavery, you can turn the tables and not be accused of racism. You can call Confederate
statues or statues or portraits of past university
staff or a moviea priori racist, and not
have someone tap you on the shoulder.

And let us not forget the very real “rising tide” of
anti-Semitism on the Left
and abroad.
You can charge all Jews with a conspiracy to conquer the world as many Leftists
and Islam do, but neglect to mention Islam’s 14 century record of anti-Semitism
and slavery and conquest, and get away with it, without so much as a nod to the
facts.

After all, “Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
And your task as a race-card game player is to be unconscious and to spread and
enforce politically correct unconsciousness on all.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Edward Cline, American Novelist

Edward Cline was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1946. After graduating from high school (in which he learned nothing of value) and a stint in the Air Force, he pursued his ambition to become a novelist. His first detective novel, First Prize, was published in 1988 by Mysterious Press/Warner Books, and his first suspense novel, Whisper the Guns, was published in 1992 by The Atlantean Press. First Prize was republished in 2009 by Perfect Crime. The Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period has garnered critical acclaim (but not yet from the literary establishment) and universal appreciation from the reading public, including parents, teachers, students, scholars, and adult readers who believe that American history has been abandoned or is misrepresented by a government-dominated educational establishment. He is dedicated to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in all matters.